On 06.01.2020 20:38, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 06/01/2020 16:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Note that SDM revision 070 doesn't specify exception behavior for
>> ModRM.mod != 0b11; assuming #UD here.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
>> ---
>> RFC: Yet to be tested (once SDE supports it).
>
> Do you hav
On 06/01/2020 16:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Note that SDM revision 070 doesn't specify exception behavior for
> ModRM.mod != 0b11; assuming #UD here.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
> ---
> RFC: Yet to be tested (once SDE supports it).
Do you have any plans for how to support ENQCMD{,S} which are ju
Note that SDM revision 070 doesn't specify exception behavior for
ModRM.mod != 0b11; assuming #UD here.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
---
RFC: Yet to be tested (once SDE supports it).
---
v4: Split MOVDIRI and MOVDIR64B. Switch to using ->rmw(). Re-base.
v3: Update description.
--- a/tools/tests/x8
